You all could just buy some Chevron/Texaco (or ExxonMobil...) stock, you know, instead of making snide comments.

I'm sure Average Joe has $10,000 to buy a 100 shares of Exxon. Oh, wait, he doesn't! His real income has been declining for years and the only asset he has left - his home - isn't worth as much.

It's one of those comments made by people who don't know any better. Try again.

Seriously, Blackadar? That last statement was uncalled for.

You're pissed off that you posted something flippant and elitist and you got called on it? It's the kind of off-hand comment that detracts from the real discussion. It ranks right up there with "well, ride a bike to work!" (yep, I heard that one too). I had this same discussion with someone last week who said - almost verbatim - the same thing. His bluster took the same hit when presented with some cold, hard facts about the state of the US economy. As such, I have little patience for nonsensical statements that are meant as red herrings to the real discourse. Of course, you could always claim that you were being facetious, but that didn't come off in your post.

Now you could have gone a different route and argued that high gas prices could, in the long run, be good. Hell, maybe it will spur development of alternative fuels that are actually sustainable without impacting our food supply (unlike Ethanol). Maybe this will actually spur fuel economy in automobiles. Maybe this will spur true conservation methods that actually could help reduce greenhouse gases. But given your contributions to this thread have been that statement, "I'm getting mine" and "blame it on Clinton", I'm not holding out for much of an analysis.

Interestingly enough, the Bush administration proposed 31.6 MPG automotive standard today. Of course, like every other proposal from this administration that takes true sacrifice, the hard work will be on someone else's watch (2015). It could easily be argued that only sacrifices made by the Bush administration over the last 8 years are 4,000 US soldiers and over 100,000 Iraqi citizens. Well, and our economy...and the middle class...and the environment...and civil liberties...and....

Flippant and elitist? I am firmly stuck in the middle class. I AM the average joe. I suggested NOTHING that any average person couldn't do for himself. Instead of complaining about high gas prices and oil companies making huge profits, I provided an entirely reasonable alternative to take advantage of the situation as an individual, and you took offense and insulted me because of it.

But thanks for the insult. Clearly you'd rather bitch about something you as an individual can't control rather than being proactive and taking advantage of the situation.

Flippant and elitist? I am firmly stuck in the middle class. I AM the average joe. I suggested NOTHING that any average person couldn't do for himself. Instead of complaining about high gas prices and oil companies making huge profits, I provided an entirely reasonable alternative to take advantage of the situation as an individual, and you took offense and insulted me because of it.

But thanks for the insult. Clearly you'd rather bitch about something you as an individual can't control rather than being proactive and taking advantage of the situation.

Well, congratulations. You managed to meet my expectations. I didn't expect any real thought or analysis...and I wasn't disappointed when you didn't provide any. Do you think the average joe has $10,000 to buy 100 shares of Exxon? You do realize that credit card debt is at an all-time high while home equity is at the lowest point in many years? What, pray tell, do you propose they use to purchase such investments? Simply put, the "solution" you propose is ludicrous and entirely unrealistic. Or are you suggesting that the "average joe" has $10,000 in disposable income that he's free to invest? Tell me, how'd it work out for the Average Joe that bought another oil stock a few years ago by the name of Enron? Think his portfolio recovered from that yet? Again, I think these statements reflect someone who is has put no thought whatsoever into this and doesn't really know any better. I think your response simply is "I'm getting mine" and I'd have more respect if you'd just come right out and say so, rather than hiding behind a cliche.

The problem here is that this is not a free-market economy sector. The barriers to entry are artificially high and the demand graph is much too inelastic (there are no real alternatives). It's a limited resource and not readily available for acquisition by new investors. As such, it should warrant Government intervention because it's not a free-market economic sector. Of course it's not just Exxon - the main culprit here is the economic policies of this administration. The M3 money rate that conveniently has gone unpublished since early 2006 is through the roof. We're printing too much money. Combine that with domestic overspending, the continued movement of the means of production overseas, the continued lowering of interest rates to help the hedge-fund money managers in the stock markets (and not Average Joe) and an ill-fated blood-money sinkhole of a war that has succeeded in making mercenary armies rich and you have the root causes of an extremely weak American dollar. You could sell your house to buy Exxon stock and you'd still be losing ground compared to the rest of the world unless we see a fundamental shift back to conservative fiscal policies that take into account Keynesian economic theory and not just supply-side economic theory.

The problem here is that this is not a free-market economy sector. The barriers to entry are artificially high and the demand graph is much too inelastic (there are no real alternatives).

I think that's the crux of the matter right there. It's really an impossible problem to solve. We as a general public can't really hope for government intervention here. There are too many convenient excuses and too many real (bad) reasons to not do anything about it.

Also, let me get this straight out there. I personally can't blame the oil companies for trying to make as much money as they possibly can here. It's what they do. It's all within the rules of the game, so far.

I still maintain that the next 'terrorist' activity to take place on American soil will not be a foreign interest doing something....but an American with enough knowledge to be dangerous getting fed up and blowing up a refinery.

Rather than buying stock in oil companies perhaps a more useful option would be to start driving less. Using less energy altogether. These prices are here to stay I'm afraid-you just gotta live with it.

Rather than buying stock in oil companies perhaps a more useful option would be to start driving less. Using less energy altogether. These prices are here to stay I'm afraid-you just gotta live with it.

It's times like this I'm happy that I don't have a car.

Logged

Because I can,also because I don't care what you want.XBL: OriginalCeeKayWii U: CeeKay

The only people I see being elitist is ourselves. We use more of the world's resources and typically pay the least for it overall when comparing ourselves to similar countries and economies.Every company has the right to make profits, itís the American way, and itís the very embodiment of Capitalism.

I really get a kick out of people who throw around big words to make themselves look like they know all.

We have more opportunities and freedoms than anywhere else in the world yet we continue to see people whine and cry like babies.

America is founded on the principles that if you don't like something you have your own ability to do something about it. That's the spirit of innovation.The problem is that it takes sacrifice, but too many people don't have the intestinal fortitude (To satisfy the "big word" users) to get there, so they just whine and complain and point fingers.

Interestingly enough there are countries that support government controlled fuel but I venture to guess not many people here would want to move to those places.

Read this excerpt from a University professor and think about it for a moment and then ask yourself, "Do I have the right to whine?"

Quote

On many occasions, including the recent Earth Summit in Johannesburg, we have seen the United States and other developed countries chastised for their gluttonous use of the Earthís nonrenewable resources. Is it not unfair to the billions of poor people in the developing world struggling to survive for the United States, with only 3 percent of the world's population, to consume some 20 to 25 percent of the world's oil, copper, and other mineral commodities? Or for the developed countries as a group, with only 20 percent of the world's population, to consume some 80 percent of the world's nonrenewable resources?

Although Americans still think of their land as a place of exceptional opportunity -- in contrast to class-bound Europe -- the evidence suggests otherwise. And scholars have, over the past decade, come to see America as a less mobile society than they once believed.

Quote

A substantial body of research finds that at least 45% of parents' advantage in income is passed along to their children, and perhaps as much as 60%. With the higher estimate, it's not only how much money your parents have that matters -- even your great-great grandfather's wealth might give you a noticeable edge today.

Quote

Despite the widespread belief that the U.S. remains a more mobile society than Europe, economists and sociologists say that in recent decades the typical child starting out in poverty in continental Europe (or in Canada) has had a better chance at prosperity. Miles Corak, an economist for Canada's national statistical agency who edited a recent Cambridge University Press book on mobility in Europe and North America, tweaked dozens of studies of the U.S., Canada and European countries to make them comparable. "The U.S. and Britain appear to stand out as the least mobile societies among the rich countries studied," he finds. France and Germany are somewhat more mobile than the U.S.; Canada and the Nordic countries are much more so.

Even the University of Chicago's Prof. Becker is changing his mind, reluctantly. "I do believe that it's still true if you come from a modest background it's easier to move ahead in the U.S. than elsewhere," he says, "but the more data we get that doesn't show that, the more we have to accept the conclusions."

Quote

In the U.S., race appears to be a significant reason that children's economic success resembles their parents'. From 32 years of data on 6,273 families recorded by the University of Michigan's long-running survey, American University economist Tom Hertz calculates that 17% of whites born to the bottom 10% of families ranked by income remained there as adults, but 42% of the blacks did. Perhaps as a consequence, public-opinion surveys find African-Americans more likely to favor government redistribution programs than whites.

Here's my take on it. I make X. I can live on substantially less than X. Do I ask those who employ me to pay me less (and perhaps spread the wealth out to other employees) because I can afford to? FUCK NO I DON'T.

Rather than buying stock in oil companies perhaps a more useful option would be to start driving less. Using less energy altogether.

This would be a hell of a lot easier were Dallas a public transportation-friendly city like NY, Chicago, San Fran, or Sydney. I've seen it when it works great and I'm all for it in those cases. But I live in a city that's defined by sprawl and held back by constant infighting/corruption/stupidity among the people responsible for expanding public transportation. As such, I'm happy to only have a 15-20 minute commute.

Here's my take on it. I make X. I can live on substantially less than X. Do I ask those who employ me to pay me less (and perhaps spread the wealth out to other employees) because I can afford to? FUCK NO I DON'T.

Do any of you?

How can we expect corporations to do the same?

gellar

We cant and we shouldnt, but some people just cant stand if a company makes what they think is 'too much', but will never give a definition of what they consider is enough money to allow a company to make. Its easier to make the companies or in this case the republican party the villians in everything.

I had to pay 3.75 a gallon for gas today and that was the cheapest for regular of 3 gas stations at an intersection. W T F !!!

Are you guys getting bent over at the pump, too?

I live in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada where a lot of your oil is being produced. If my math is correct, your $3.75 a gallon is equal to aproximately 99 cents per liter. (1 gallon = 3.785 liters)

We're paying $1.17 a liter, aproximately $4.42 a gallon. This summer we've been warned that gas might go up to $1.30 - 1.80 a liter, which is $4.92 - $6.81 a gallon. We're pumping our oil out of the ground and sending it to the US, and buying it back at inflated prices. The bottom line is that we're subsidizing your gas prices. Europe pays similar prices. The US has some of the lowest gas prices (other than those producers who don't keep their own) in the world.

Gasoline is a commodity that everybody needs. And it is in limited supply. Of course it is going to increase in price. As stated in above posts there are nations that have it much worse than we do in the US. It seems to me that we need to address the demand for gasoline instead of attacking the suppliers for making money. I ride a bike for short trips and take the train to work whenever possible. The next time we buy a new car it will be a hybrid or alternative fuel version. I think the high cost of fossil fuels will prompt an unprecedented level of research into alternative fuels and energy sources. For the first time I think it will be possible to make a profit in that type of business. Maybe in the end $4 a gallon for gas will be the kick in the ass we need to start seriously looking in another direction at last.

Here's my take on it. I make X. I can live on substantially less than X. Do I ask those who employ me to pay me less (and perhaps spread the wealth out to other employees) because I can afford to? FUCK NO I DON'T.

Do any of you?

How can we expect corporations to do the same?

gellar

Corporations are chartered for the express purpose of maximizing returns for their shareholders. Period. They are not social welfare organizations. They do not have consciences. They owe nothing more to their customers beyond what will maximize profits. They transcend national boundaries. They are only loosely bound by laws, and their officers are largely insulated from the consequences of their actions.

It's not a great movie, but perhaps you'd find The Corporation informative. (That's "you" at large, not "you" Gellar).

I think that is exactly my point. Anyone who expects corporations (or anyone at all, really) to act in a manner that does NOT serve their best interests is a bit daft.

Of course - which is why they need to be regulated to ensure that the needs of American citizens trump corporate profits.

And how do we do that? Are you going to have government tell a company how much money they are allowed to make? Going to have government set price controls? Wondering what the amazing solution to all our worries and problems will be.

I guess I am in favor of federally mandated mileage requirements on cars and incentives for using hybrids. But I think the regulation of gas companies by politicians is asking for all kinds of trouble.

I didnt analyze anything, i asked how you would solve the problem, but you dont want to seem to answer any questions about it. Are you just here to whine about the problem, but never give an idea how to solve it? An answer to anyone of the questions i asked without the snark and insults would be nice.

I guess I am in favor of federally mandated mileage requirements on cars and incentives for using hybrids. But I think the regulation of gas companies by politicians is asking for all kinds of trouble.

Problem here is - this isn't the only use of Oil. It won't affect prices at all because as Blackadar mentioned, the demand is inelastic and other (more environmentally harmful) uses of crude oil will keep demand way, way high. Automobiles are actually a tiny piece of the puzzle.

I guess I am in favor of federally mandated mileage requirements on cars and incentives for using hybrids. But I think the regulation of gas companies by politicians is asking for all kinds of trouble.

Problem here is - this isn't the only use of Oil. It won't affect prices at all because as Blackadar mentioned, the demand is inelastic and other (more environmentally harmful) uses of crude oil will keep demand way, way high. Automobiles are actually a tiny piece of the puzzle.

gellar

I agree with you. I am just not crazy about putting congress in charge of regulating the gas companies. At the end of the day the only demand I can control is my own.

The more democrats elected, the more likely stuff'll make it through congress. So, denoginizer, it's your responsibility to carry Ohio for the dems!

The funny thing about Ohio is that we tend to load up on the Democrats in Congress and the Senate. But tend to go Republican for Governor and President. Although with the election of a Democratic Governor recently things might look good for Obama in November.

I think that is exactly my point. Anyone who expects corporations (or anyone at all, really) to act in a manner that does NOT serve their best interests is a bit daft.

Of course - which is why they need to be regulated to ensure that the needs of American citizens trump corporate profits.

And how do we do that? Are you going to have government tell a company how much money they are allowed to make? Going to have government set price controls? Wondering what the amazing solution to all our worries and problems will be.

Actually, we do regulate industries that have monopolistic pricing to more closely match what a free market would deliver. See anti-trust regulations, etc. Which is kind of what the oil market is behaving like.

Here's my take on it. I make X. I can live on substantially less than X. Do I ask those who employ me to pay me less (and perhaps spread the wealth out to other employees) because I can afford to? FUCK NO I DON'T.

Do any of you?

How can we expect corporations to do the same?

gellar

We cant and we shouldnt, but some people just cant stand if a company makes what they think is 'too much', but will never give a definition of what they consider is enough money to allow a company to make. Its easier to make the companies or in this case the republican party the villians in everything.

Stop the presses, I have to sign out now because I agree 100% with Brett and Hell hath froze over

I think that is exactly my point. Anyone who expects corporations (or anyone at all, really) to act in a manner that does NOT serve their best interests is a bit daft.

Of course - which is why they need to be regulated to ensure that the needs of American citizens trump corporate profits.

And how do we do that? Are you going to have government tell a company how much money they are allowed to make? Going to have government set price controls? Wondering what the amazing solution to all our worries and problems will be.

Actually, we do regulate industries that have monopolistic pricing to more closely match what a free market would deliver. See anti-trust regulations, etc. Which is kind of what the oil market is behaving like.

I think that is exactly my point. Anyone who expects corporations (or anyone at all, really) to act in a manner that does NOT serve their best interests is a bit daft.

Of course - which is why they need to be regulated to ensure that the needs of American citizens trump corporate profits.

And how do we do that? Are you going to have government tell a company how much money they are allowed to make? Going to have government set price controls? Wondering what the amazing solution to all our worries and problems will be.

Actually, we do regulate industries that have monopolistic pricing to more closely match what a free market would deliver. See anti-trust regulations, etc. Which is kind of what the oil market is behaving like.

Is there one single oil company that has a monopoly?

I was about to ask the same question. Lets see if an answer will actually come forth.

Here's my take on it. I make X. I can live on substantially less than X. Do I ask those who employ me to pay me less (and perhaps spread the wealth out to other employees) because I can afford to? FUCK NO I DON'T.

Do any of you?

How can we expect corporations to do the same?

gellar

We cant and we shouldnt, but some people just cant stand if a company makes what they think is 'too much', but will never give a definition of what they consider is enough money to allow a company to make. Its easier to make the companies or in this case the republican party the villians in everything.

Stop the presses, I have to sign out now because I agree 100% with Brett and Hell hath froze over

I hear they are going to require a credit card to play GTA IV so they can charge you for virtual gas

Logged

Because I can,also because I don't care what you want.XBL: OriginalCeeKayWii U: CeeKay

I'm glad I live four miles from my job and only work three or four days a week. People commuting long distances have got to be going nuts with the constantly increasing prices. I have one friend who says it costs him $400 a month to drive to work. He's going to be switching vehicles to get that number down (he's driving a Ford F350 diesel).

My wife and I have always been on the low end when it comes to how much we drive. If you combine both vehicles, we do about 16,000 miles a year. Most people do more than that with one vehicle. It still hurts to pay over $3.50 a gallon, though. We're at the point that we are taking a very serious look at our expenses and looking for anything to cut. We've already been doing this for numerous years due to inflation outpacing my raises for the last seven years, and so it's no fun trying to cut when we've already been cutting. Our property taxes went up 19% last year due to a bunch of idiots voting for every bond measure on the ballot. We may end up having to move to a cheaper house to make ends meet because we don't have any other high dollar items to cut (we have no debt besides our house).

Tonight I want to have an unpleasant talk with you about a problem unprecedented in our history. With the exception of preventing war, this is the greatest challenge our country will face during our lifetimes. The energy crisis has not yet overwhelmed us, but it will if we do not act quickly.

It is a problem we will not solve in the next few years, and it is likely to get progressively worse through the rest of this century.

We must not be selfish or timid if we hope to have a decent world for our children and grandchildren.

We simply must balance our demand for energy with our rapidly shrinking resources. By acting now, we can control our future instead of letting the future control us.

Two days from now, I will present my energy proposals to the Congress. Its members will be my partners and they have already given me a great deal of valuable advice. Many of these proposals will be unpopular. Some will cause you to put up with inconveniences and to make sacrifices.

The most important thing about these proposals is that the alternative may be a national catastrophe. Further delay can affect our strength and our power as a nation.

Read the link. It's a good speech. Except for a few updates to take greenhouse gases into account, it's still relevant.

Carter got most of his plan through Congress, btw. It was undone by his successor (and the eventual return of cheap, plentiful oil).

Quote from: PaulBot on April 24, 2008, 04:49:40 PM

The whole situation just sucks and it ain't getting any better.

The whole situation is a consequence of the way we live and our underlying assumptions. It will get better when those change...meaning that it will fall to a future generation to do any more than tinker around the edges.